Foil lesson cues

[catwood1]

I apologize in advance for the pretty simple question.

What would you guys suggest in terms of the cues to use in an intermediate or beginner foil lesson? Even for something very simple, say an extension lunge out of motion. While the coaching is leading the footwork with the student keeping distance, the coach cues the student to lunge in. How? I understand there needs to be some specific reason for why the cue appears when it does, I just mean what specific cue to use. For example, I've seen many coaches simply drop their guard to indicate the cue, but that doesn't seem like the best cue to use.

I appreciate any thoughts from the phenomenal coaches who post on this board.

[tbryan]

Even for something very simple, say an extension lunge out of motion. While the coaching is leading the footwork with the student keeping distance, the coach cues the student to lunge in. How? I understand there needs to be some specific reason for why the cue appears when it does, I just mean what specific cue to use. For example, I've seen many coaches simply drop their guard to indicate the cue, but that doesn't seem like the best cue to use.

I believe that's the standard cue that you'd learn at level 1 Coach's College. It lets you start with absence of blade. You'd like the student to react to a visual cue. It's a simple cue that's easy for them to see.

For a simple, direct attack with a beginner, you'll generally want to cue just as the student finishes the advance so that he's stable and able to lunge. You'd be stationary as they lunge and hit.

This cue also keeps the coach's hand in good position (if you don't exaggerate the cue) for subsequent actions. For example, you'll later want to cue this same fencer to hit with a compound attack. You'd use the same cue, but you'd give the cue just as you start moving back. The student now has to advance before he can hit with a lunge. He'll feint as he makes his advance. As his front foot lands on the advance, you parry the feint. You can smoothly and easily move from the cue position to make the parry. Student deceives as his back foot moves into position, and he finishes extending, lunging to hit.

What about this cue don't you like? Perhaps you've seen it used in an exaggerated way? I've watched really good coaches use this cue. It's a small, simple action.

Did you have something else in mind?

[catwood1]

Thanks.

I definitely don't have anything else in mind. My main issue with it is the idea that it can instill a bad habit. It seems like constantly being exposed to the cue of the dropping of the weapon would teach a fencer to constantly attack their opponent whenever their opponent drops their weapon, which would be a mistake. However, I suppose that so long as the coach makes the cues at the correct times, and the focus is put on when and why the cue is given, not just THAT it is given, then no bad habits would form.

[jBirch]

As tbryan says, that's the standard cue.

As the student progresses though, you start to incorporate more subtle cues and different responses to their attack.

For example, I want the student to attack my chest so I drop my blade and the student lunges. After they get in the rhythm for that, I start to make smaller and smaller cues with different distance changes. If I drop the blade and make an advance, I want a simple extension. If I drop the blade and make a retreat, I want an advance lunge. I may make an esquive, in which case, I want the student to keep the point on the target.

If I want to get the hand extension correct, I'll make a "late parry" or a remise. If the student finishes correctly then my action will irrelevent. If they hesitate or make a slow extension after the body, they'll get caught.

The speed of my counter-action and how quickly I come back en garde will set the degree of difficulty for the student.

If I want to get the student thinking about second intention, I'll introduce a "choice" into the action: the student makes a feint and if I respond, they disengage, if not, they continue. Sometimes I let them discover this reaction after I make a surprise parry to their cued lunge. Sometimes we stop and discuss how the next part of the lesson is going to unfold. It depends on what it is I'm teaching and how the student learns best.

In this way you can introduce a whole host of other cues to create different motions in the fencer. The trick is create a realistic, but very clear, signal for the fencer to react to and to do it for a purpose that explains something to them.

Start slow and build up.

James.

[oiuyt]

Ask yourself if you're trying to simulate a specific bout situation or if you're just trying to tell them "go now!"

If the former your cue should resemble the situation.

If the latter it doesn't matter much.

Now, ideally, even in the latter case you want it to have some relavance to what they'll see in bouts. Your extending would be a bad cue to give for them to make a simple attack. Your slightly moving your tip is a fairly good one, although one that can potentially cause trouble later when you also want them to correctly react to an indirect attack from their opponent. A small hand twitch is also a fairly neutral cue.

Why is the student attacking now and not one step earlier or one step later? If there's no reason why NOW is the right time and those were the wrong time what are you teaching? Help them recognize why NOW and that will become the cue. It also means it should translate naturally to hitting opponents who don't give a cue at the instant your fencer hits the ideal situation.

-B

[Allen Evans]

...or don't use a blade cue at all. You can have the student make attacks on your footwork, or on a distance change or direction change by the coach.

If you do use a blade cue, and you make your cue at the right time/distance, and with a small motion, you're hardly in danger of creating a robot that lunges every time you twitch your hand. If you want to be SURE that this doesn't happen, give a lesson in which you give the cue out of distance, and correct the fencer if they ignore the distance and lunge on the blade cue. Every beginner you train should have that lesson early in their career.

Allen Evans

[AaronK]

That's not a simple question at all! It's one that far too many of us take for granted.

I agree with your gut instinct- it seems dangerously close to making students into robots if they are blindly following.

I'm going to propose an alternative idea (perhaps radical, perhaps not) that I think Brad's questions lead towards (and my apology if it seems like I am sticking words in his mouth, these are my thoughts and he may happen to agree with them, though he may not):

Why cue? Even if you are teaching a mechanical skill to a beginner, there is no reason why it can't be taught in the context of what is going to happen on the strip:
1. It is more likely that your fencer will choose to attack than attack because they saw a preconditioned opening- in fact if they where waiting to see the opening it's too late!
2. I would think that most coaches would want their students to act on their own initiative rather than respond to their opponent- you follow by choice rather than be lead by the opponent's movements. The student isn't attacking because there is a cue, so much as recognizing the pre-determined conditions they determined would provide the greatest scoring opportunity.

To get back to the point- why is the coach not simply fencing the student? I am not advocating an all-out assault on some poor fencing newbie; why isn't the coach creating the environment that would give an opportunity for a touch, at the right time, at the right distance, under the right circumstances. A student can practice lunges against a pad on cue of a flashing light or random buzzer on their own- so what purpose does the coaches movement serve?
All of the observation, feedback, etc. that a coach can give when cueing they can just as easily give while fencing- and so long as the coach keeps perspective that the STUDENT is supposed to be the one achieving success (by keeping in check any competitive ego that may be lurking about) they shouldn't have a problem adjusting the level of their game to allow even the most beginning student to recognize the correct opportunity to act.

[AaronK]

While I was busy formulating my marathon response, Allen beat me to the post- and said it in far less words!

[darius]

I agree with Allen and Aaron...mostly.

But playing devil's advocate -- what if the sole point of the lesson is to instill or correct a very specific motor habit? We've probably all witnessed high-level coaches teaching actions as if they are closed-skills.

One of my coach development tasks last week was teaching fast-slow-fast attacks, and the coach I was working with wanted me to cue the speed with my off-hand. I was skeptical about that, but paraphrasing him, the student paying attention to your hand actually creates a divisibility-of-attention scenario that's positive to learning what you're trying to teach.

I've also seen the French national sabre coaches do some bizarre cues where, following a series of actions, they actually hold their forearm vertically and take cuts crisscrossing up their forearm. It creates a situation where the fencer can't do the action unless they're maintaining a loose shoulder.

And what about those series-of-beats-in-different lines followed by a hit? Or series-of-disengages actions? They're clearly cued, but you get a lot more repetitions of the qualities you're trying to improve and should have a confidence-building effect on the student. You can add distance assessment and change-of-decision into those types of exercises to keep them from becoming rote.

I don't necessarily know where this train of thought is headed, but have found that there are certain places where cueing is useful - in the above cases, it's over-training a certain action to develop a specific type of movement; you could do that in a lesson and demand looseness after the fact, or you could artificially create a situation where the student has to perform multiple repetitions and either passes or fails depending on having those qualities. In SOME cases, I'd rather have the repetitions than the realism.

darius

[thekoby]

Why cue? Even if you are teaching a mechanical skill to a beginner, there is no reason why it can't be taught in the context of what is going to happen on the strip:
1. It is more likely that your fencer will choose to attack than attack because they saw a preconditioned opening- in fact if they where waiting to see the opening it's too late!
2. I would think that most coaches would want their students to act on their own initiative rather than respond to their opponent- you follow by choice rather than be lead by the opponent's movements. The student isn't attacking because there is a cue, so much as recognizing the pre-determined conditions they determined would provide the greatest scoring opportunity.

This topic has been on my mind too recently and I'm thrilled to see the numerous responses.

Going (partially) along with Aaron, something that my coach would do is work with me on a cue standing still, then add in footwork with cues in and out of distance so I can see the difference, then began randomly doing cues while varying the footwork as well as other blade actions (like lunging at me to make me parry-riposte for example). The point of doing the cues randomly and mixed with other blade work was to make me react on my own initiative (like Aaron pointed out), then he would correct me if I was wrong (out of distance or lunged when I should have extended). I'm sure others will agree with me that you don't have to go to the extent that my coach did and work with students standing still before moving to footwork with cues.

I wish I had some insightful advice to give, but since I'm still trying to develop a good program for teaching with cues myself, I'm just going to sit back and read what everybody else has to say about it.

[Allen Evans]

A cue is part of the language a coach uses to train a fencer. I understood that catwood was/is probably teaching a very simple action to a beginning fencer (as catwood is a beginning coach himself) so I tried to phrase my answer in that context.

In the case of working with some of my advance fencers, I don't even cue at all. I give them a task, and they figure out when and where to initiate the start. But this is primarily an "A" and "B" level skill, though all my fencers (including beginners) get exposed to this to a varying degree.

When teaching is expanded to the entire range of fencing/coaching activities, the cues can be a little bizzare. As darius mentioned, there are a lot of different ways to "talk" to the student depending on what you're looking for and what the purpose of the exercise is. Especially when making a compelling exericise for the student, the cue may not even be a "fencing" action, but siimply a way to get the student to perform an action or actions in a way that's beneficial to a motor process or another other goal.

Allen Evans

[keith]

What would you guys suggest in terms of the cues to use in an intermediate or beginner foil lesson?

Leaving aside all the previous good stuff.....

You are looking at getting the student to make a transition from attacking into an open line to attacking into an opening line*. The next transition is to get the student to understand how to generate that opening line.

The simple invitation is to open a line and have the student lunge into it. This can then be sharpened up by starting on the edge of their lunging distance and providing them with a series of false cues before the real cue - opening with an advance.

For example attempt engage sixte, attempt engage sixte, attempt engage sixte with an advance. Bear in mind in all these types of exercises you have to get the student to see the difference between a preparation and an attack - always thow in the direct attack on occasion to ensure that the student gets the RoW thing in their head.

You can do the same thing with a beat, beat disengage (or any other action) and the whole thing can be transitioned from a static exercise to one with movement.

Getting the student to generate an opening line is a bit more tricky since if you are not helping out by making the blade/distance mistake they have to use preparation (or an initial attack) to generate it. So you could have the student make a false back foot movement to induce your advance into distance.

Do try and reinforce the distinction between an attack into an opening line and an open line. A simple action into an open line (the student is late) should not be allowed to hit** - you can either make a parry riposte or step back out of distance.



* I am deliberately omitting all the stuff which allows an attack into a closed line.

** Assuming distance has not collapsed completely, but the action could develop to include a disengage go compound.

[Jason]

I apologize in advance for the pretty simple question.

What would you guys suggest in terms of the cues to use in an intermediate or beginner foil lesson? Even for something very simple, say an extension lunge out of motion. While the coaching is leading the footwork with the student keeping distance, the coach cues the student to lunge in. How? I understand there needs to be some specific reason for why the cue appears when it does, I just mean what specific cue to use. For example, I've seen many coaches simply drop their guard to indicate the cue, but that doesn't seem like the best cue to use.

I appreciate any thoughts from the phenomenal coaches who post on this board.

You have a few assumptions built into your question which will cause you some trouble.

You should first decide what in your lesson you are trying to teach/develop/analyze/perfect/etc (you shouldn't be trying all those things, just one or two). In the situation you're presenting, I believe you want to have your student work on his ability to execute an attack with lunge while moving. (This, by the way, may be fundamental to fencing, but it is far from simple.)

If this is, indeed, what you are trying to teach, the coach should not be leading the footwork. The coach does not have to be moving at full speed, but he--and the student--should be moving as fencers in a bout would (though, again, it may be a slow-motion version of that). In other words, both are trying to control the movement. The student's ability to control the movement and distance is probably the single most important element in scoring with attack (or anything else, really).

If you want the student to go on a specific signal (rather than choosing his own time based entirely on assessment and control of both the distance and the opponent) take that signal from bouting conditions. Aaron's post was entirely correct.

Developing your student's reactions is not just a matter of teaching them to react to something, it's a matter of training them to react to specific situations they see in a bout.

Here is a generic image of a foil lesson: the coach walking up and down the strip as his student follows, occasionally dropping his weapon for the student to lunge, then leaning in to the hit and clicking the student's blade with his own.
Don't emulate any of these things.

Your students will improve so much faster if you consider: 1. What do you want to work on; 2. How is that skill/ability demonstrated in bouts; 3. What exercises can be derived directly from the bout situation to allow the student to develop that skill/ability.

[AaronK]

The point of doing the cues randomly and mixed with other blade work was to make me react on my own initiative

Discriminating between cues, as an "eyes open" exercise or to discriminate between real and false cues is a valuable lesson. My only nitpicking with this statement is that reacting to random cues is still reacting. If there is a choice between A or B and the coach initiates it, the student is still following. If it is a choice to only act on A, and sometimes B or C will appear, the student is still moving when cued to move. They may be a better robot, but a robot still.
Randomizing different cues works on a student's ability to perceive and discriminate amongst different stimulus- which is a complex issue in itself (I am assuming that all the cues/skills are known and familiar to the student).

If the coach said:
"I am going to give you a cues to hit by opening various lines. You may attack into any one of the opening or choose to ignore them. We will work on the next skill once you have made 10 successful attacks."
-this would be a set of cues that would allow the student to act more on their own initiative.

It's not that I am invalidating the (example) exercise, but I don't agree with the argument in support of it. In other words it is good for something, just something else.

[jBirch]

Let's not get too far ahead of the student here...

Random cues and student led footwork are not something that you want to be doing with beginner/intermediate students. At that level, you're working simply on technical execution at the correct timing.

Hunting lessons and controlling footwork are a much later skill to be training, IMHO. First step, get the student to simply keep the distance and to the right action when the cue happens.

That's hard enough for beginners and intermediates alike.

Keep it simple; keep it clear.

After the student can successfully keep the distance and act correctly when the cue is given, then, and only then, should you increase the difficulty and start letting the student lead more and deal with a larger set of potential actions.

One on one lessons are for learning technique; controlled bouts are for learning tactics.

James.

[keith]

great conductors don't give cues, they give inspiration (and cues).

[AaronK]

James:

Random cues and student led footwork are not something that you want to be doing with beginner/intermediate students.

Why not?
There are tons of fencing games/exercises where I give random cues in my intro classes. Calling out footwork for students to execute (en masse) is essentially randomizing cues- unless you use the same pattern every class.

I think we may have some disagreement here because of how we are defining "beginner/intermediate/advanced"- or perhaps not. Let me define how I am using the terms:
Regardless of someone's skill level, if I am teaching someone a new mechanical skill- one that they have never performed- I am going to teach the mechanics of the movement. I am also likely to do that independent of context (movement, or "bout-like" conditions).
Once the person is able to execute that movement, I will put that movement into a context as soon as possible. If the student has some coordination issue, or biomechanical issue to prevent the movement that needs to be sorted out- and degradation in the student's technical performance will always happen when new elements are added. I am sure that we still will disagree as to how soon someone perform a skill with movement and on their own initiative- but that's a separate discussion.

One on one lessons are for learning technique; controlled bouts are for learning tactics.

I have used a individual lesson to teach technique- however I would rather that the student practice the thousands of repetitions to master that motor skill on someone else- I'm not a backstop. If another coach wants to use lessons for that purpose, great- there are many, many ways one-one-one instruction can be used. You have given an excellent example: individual lessons can be used for coaching technique.
I do use lessons for that purpose, but I also teach tactics in that context.
Likewise, the vast majority of beginning technique I teach in a group format. I may have to make corrections to individual students, but the introduction of the skill, repetitions of that skill, and even feedback about the most common errors are all given as group instruction.

Where we do agree is that a beginning student's tasks should be kept simple, instruction should be clear, and that lessons (regardless of how they are being taught) should happen in stages to reflect learning and ability.

What may clarify my original post- is that when someone says beginner I may be translating that as "inexperienced", though I have not necessarily translated that as "new".

darius:
I think I would answer your first question similarly: there are certainly times that people have given cues, and have gotten results (Olympic medals even!).
Though if the correct motor habit is to relax the shoulder after a particular action (such as the one unnamed French saber coach uses), why does the coach need to instill a non-sport specific movement to reinforce it? If there is a reason to keep the shoulder relaxed after an action, can't the coach just as effectively create the conditions that it would be necessary [to have a relaxed shoulder]?
The example you gave from your own coaching:
Is it possible to create a real fencing scenario where the fencer is dividing their attention and could- on their own initiative- execute an action that changes speed twice (fast-slow-fast)?

I still will argue that the most effective "cue" is in fact a real fencing action, rather than a simulated fencing action. I will concede (for now) that it may be impossible to get a fencer to respond to the fencing environment correctly when they lack the experience to do so. As it was suggested- you can't get too far ahead of your student- least you loose them.

[Jason]

Random cues and student led footwork are not something that you want to be doing with beginner/intermediate students. At that level, you're working simply on technical execution at the correct timing.

Hunting lessons and controlling footwork are a much later skill to be training, IMHO. First step, get the student to simply keep the distance and to the right action when the cue happens.

Aaron did a great job of responding to this, however he wasn't nearly as obnoxious as I am (something to work on, Aaron!), so I'll add a few comments:
If catwood is just looking to have his student practice executing lunges then, sure, there's no need to be thinking of controlling distance--in fact, he should be doing it in place. If an introduction to timing is what the lesson's about then, again, it ought to be in place with the action being executed on, say, the coach's step forward (or as he search's for the student's blade or whatever--note the cues are "real"). However, the moment the lesson involves maneuvering, then it is, by definition, a lesson about controlling distance. Any follow-the-leader nonsense is wasting time. Even beginning students can do exercises that involve controlling distance--in fact, if you don't do it with them as beginners, it will be much harder for them to learn it later, after they've come to learn fencing movement as passive movement.

One on one lessons are for learning technique; controlled bouts are for learning tactics.

This idea is absurdly limiting and useless. You can learn all sort of things in individual lessons and all sorts of things in other forms of training as well.

[Allen Evans]

One on one lessons are for learning technique; controlled bouts are for learning tactics.

In the context of Catwood's question, I would agree. But in the larger context of lessons in general, I would very much disagree. The lesson is about teaching whatever the particular student needs at that particular time. The lesson can be technical, technical/tactical, tactical/technical, or just tactical.

I wouldn't limit one on one lessons to only one function.

Allen Evans
(without being obnoxious)

[jBirch]

Good God I hate the imprecise nature of text.

What are we talking about here?

In my mind, the "individual lesson" (when the coach is suited up in the big leather jacket and working with the student exclusively) starts static, moves into "controlled footwork" (we take steps together) and then into "following footwork" (where the student is responsible for maintaining distance and then acting according to the lesson on my various cues and distance changes).

Advanced students move through the static and controlled phases quickly. Beginners sometimes stay there for the entire lesson, depending on how they're doing at synthesising the skill. Intermediates end up somewhere in between.

If the student is keeping up at each stage, we ratchet up the difficulty by introducing either "fencing noise" (half actions and feints, usually) or more precision (fleeting cues, different sentiment du fer, etc...)

Sometimes a student has a tactical mistake that we're working on, and in that context we'll bout, they and I. My goal is to exploit that opportunity. Their goal is to stay safe and score touches on my openings. But the bout is very tightly controlled so that they are focused on their technique and not on just scoring touches.

Keeping the distance is the fundamental skill that the rest of distance manouvre is built upon, IMHO. And so it's the fundamental way in which dynamic exercises work. The coach leads, and the student follows. When the opportunity arises, they perform the action that we're working on.

Eg//

If we're working on retreats, then I want the student to be able to keep the distance and then "scoot out of the way" when I make my attack, turn the corner and hit me with a riposte...or not, depending on the lesson. If we're working on lunges and fleches and advance lunges, then I'll show the opportunity and attempt to change my distance accordingly.

Is that what you mean by "student led footwork"? If so, I see it as coach led footwork, since the student is never really "doing their own thing" to create opportunity for themselves. They act according to the lesson and the coach allows the opportunity for them to work on exploiting.

What I'm hearing though, is the bouting situation where the student and coach are each executing individual movements unrelated to each other to create an advantage and exploit it.

That pattern of movement I call "bouting".

But to start with bouting as the only way to teach is, IMHO, not the way to get good students.

Games and group lessons are a completely different thing. Students learn a ton by fencing each other, by playing fencing games and by partner drills. Most of those focus on some flavour of bouting so that the students learn some new patterns of movement.

At my club, in group footwork exercises, the exercise leader is moving in "fencing patterns" (attack, retreat, run away, broken time, etc...) smoothly simulating some of the common patterns found in a bout and the students are required to keep the distance as best they can. But it's not "random". It has a purpose. The leader is advancing to create opportunity. They are retreating to escape a bad lunge. Whatever.

But it's not random.

That doesn't mean that you don't incorporate elements of advanced footwork, advanced timing and advanced blade work into an individual lesson. And by "advanced" I mean quick, precise AND complicated. But these boil down to correct patterns of movement executed at the proper time and distance. Not random actions by either party.

Does that clarify anything?

James.